





















$4 tei& M 




1*/ . c » 1 




' ?, "\v\, y."; v /•« 

% ■■ %&..) ‘■vWv^-V' ,s 

\r.A ■. \A.\T\ w^g • f X, . h ' /Si] 

. '"m j . * * , 

/ ; < ' f * \J ' ,v 4 v . V ,fV v * 

i' ’ \L k % * r ";rl > ! ' *.*•’? a »i “• -if •,. t ' s'* 

r \*s < «\ i , ti : \ »t *" k v 

1 \ A * ** / * • i » :- y s 1 . 

* * * \ / A * if 

/<!(£■. /*• *i ■ . ' *.\ ' ■ - f ■ ■ v \<t \ • # . *? . 

> » f i 

« v % \ v |< • C . 


h 


*• i 

♦. ' 


5i 




V: f 2 *'? 


. v 
. ' 1 


V f . 


S' 




. V \ 




* >4 

vv. 




r, * ,* . • > 

'4 .1 




f.. 


;'•,. 4 

\ f ’ 




IDEALS 


OF 


AN IDEALIST 

By James W; Remick 

n 


Through our tears we see the ideals for which 
they died, and pledge our sacred honor that they shall 
not have died in vain. 


THE RUMFORD PRESS 
CONCORD, N. H. 
1924 



t- 7 +Z 

•^37 


COYPRIGHT I924 

By James W. Remick 


©Cl A 807589 

OCT 31*24 

'Tte ' / • 


TO 

MY WIFE AND DAUGHTER 
















































































•• 
















































































































CONTENTS 

Ideals of an Idealist 

I. Foreword. 7 

II. Professional Ideals. 

1. Legal Ethics. 9 

2. Legal Reforms .12 

3. The Lawyer and Big Business .... 14 

III. Political Ideals. 

1. Illiteracy..17 

2. Immigration.18 

3. Use and Abuse of Political Parties . . 18 

4. Use and Abuse of Money.20 

IV. Purity of Elections.22 

V. “ Jethro Bass” or the Origin of the Progres¬ 
sive Movement.25 

VI. An Epistle to a Senator.30 

Anent Foreign Entanglements, the Phil¬ 
ippines, and the League of Nations ... 30 

VII. Women Voters and Partisan Politics. 

An Epistle from a Father to His Daughter 
Concerning Her Political Duties and the 
Spirit in which She Should Perform Them 42 

VIII. National Selfishness or National Soul? ... 49 

IX. Two Guardians of Democracy.52 

X. Three Pillars of Civilization ....... 55 





















FOREWORD 


T)ELIEVING that the truly normal is always pro¬ 
gressive; that idealism is the torch that not only 
lights the pathway of individual progress but guides 
civilization onward and upward, I have always been a 
progressive and an idealist, at least in spirit and vision 
if not always consistently so in practice. I could not be 
happy otherwise. I could not be happy staying on the 
lower levels of my own nature. No more could I be 
content to see my country, my profession, or my party 
confirmed in degeneracy. 

With the whole nauseating and humiliating brood of 
public scandals, born of normalcy and common sense, 
before us, we see as never before the practical value and 
saving power of idealism; we realize as never before that 
idealism is the mirror of the soul, in which men and 
states see, not as through a glass darkly but face to face, 
their imperfections and shortcomings—the perils that 
lie in the course they are pursuing, and the way of safety. 
We see as never before that idealism is to individuals and 
nations going wrong what the light in the lighthouse is to 
the vessel out of its course and headed for the rocks, 
and that the sort of normalcy and common sense which 
has been illustrated by the Veterans’ Aid Bureau, Teapot 
Dome and other scandals, is making shipwreck of de¬ 
mocracy and civilization. 

The following compilation of my own professional and 
political ideals as expressed from time to time was 
prompted by the conceit, pardonable I trust, that my 
wife and daughter at least, and perhaps a few others 
might prize it and by the less pardonable conceit that per¬ 
haps it might, in some way, promote the ideals discussed. 

James W. Remick. 

Concord, N. H., 

September n, 1924. 






PROFESSIONAL IDEALS 

LEGAL ETHICS 

From remarks before the New Hampshire Bar Association at the thresh¬ 
old of the author's professional career. 

Lord Brougham has been quoted as saying: 

11 A lawyer in the discharge of his duty knows but one person in all 
the world and that person is his client. To save that client by all 
means and expedients and at all hazards and costs to other persons, 
and among them himself, is his first duty; and in performing this duty, 
he must not regard the alarm, the torment and destruction he may 
bring upon others, separating the duty of a patriot from that of an 
advocate, he must go on reckless of consequences though it should be 
his unhappy lot to involve his country in confusion.” 

I f this correctly states our relation to our own client, 
I do not see where there is any room for ethics in our 
relation to our opponent’s client or anybody else. 

It seems to me impossible that the distinguished 
Lord, who gave utterance to these sentiments, could have 
intended what the words so clearly express. Perhaps, 
if we had the full text of his remarks before us and were to 
read them in the light of the circumstances under which 
they were uttered, their meaning would appear entirely 
different. Be this as it may, the idea expressed that an 
attorney is committed soul and body to his client, is 
bound to sacrifice honor, country and everything else 
if the exigencies of the case require it, is intolerable, 
an insult to our profession and a degradation of the ideals 
of justice. 

It might do for the relation of pirates in the business of 
pillage and plunder, but it has no place in a code of ethics 
for the government of the relation of attorney and client 
in the administration of enlightened law. When an 
attorney accepts a retainer, I conceive it to be with the 


10 


IDEALS 


implied understanding that it is subject to his preexisting 
obligations to his Maker, to himself, to his family, to 
society and to the institution of justice, to be a con¬ 
scientious gentleman in every relation in which his re¬ 
tainer may involve him. It is the right of our client to 
expect us to make every honorable effort in his behalf. 
It is the right of our opponent’s client to expect that we 
will do no more. When we go further and resort to 
sharp practices of any kind for the sake of a favorable 
verdict or judgment, we offend against every sound 
principle of ethics governing our relations to our own 
and to our opponent’s client, and to the court. We make 
piracy the business of our profession and prostitute the 
noble science we have sworn to maintain in purity and 
integrity. 

Upon this subject, Chief Justice Gibson once said: 

“It is a popular but gross mistake to suppose that a lawyer owes no¬ 
fidelity to anyone except his client and that the latter is the keeper of 
his professional conscience. He is expressly bound by his official oath 
to behave himself, in the office of attorney, with all fidelity to the court 
as well as the client. The high and honorable office of a counsel would 
be degraded to that of a mercenary, were he compelled to do the bidding 
of his client against the dictates of his conscience.” 

The same sentiment has been expressed in flowing 
numbers by our great commentator, Sir William Black- 
stone : 

“To virtue and her friends, a friend, 

Still may my voice the weak defend, 

Ne’er may my prostituted tongue 
Protect the oppressor in his wrong 
Nor wrest the spirit of the laws 
To sanctify the villain’s cause.” 

Sharswood, in his admirable work on legal ethics,, 
says: 

“Counsel ought to refuse to act under instructions from his client 
to defeat what he believes to be an honest and just claim, by insisting 


IDEALS 


II 


upon the slips of the opposite party, by sharp practice or special plead¬ 
ing—in short, by any other means than a fair trial on the merits in 
open court. There is no professional duty—no virtual engagement 
with the client which compels an advocate to resort to such measures to 
secure success in any cause, just or unjust. And when so instructed, if 
he believes it to be intended to gain an unrighteous object, he ought to 
throw up the cause and retire from all connection with it, rather than 
thus be a participator in other men’s sins.” 

I prefer the conception expressed by these great and 
good luminaries of our profession to the lower concep¬ 
tion expressed by Lord Brougham. 

In this jurisdiction where legal battles are fought with 
such bitterness, it is well for us to keep ever in mind this 
higher conception of our professional duty, lest in the heat 
of the conflicts—striving for victory, and prestige, and 
tempted by emoluments—we may forget our obligations 
to the court and our responsibility to the great system 
and institution of jurisprudence, with which we are per¬ 
mitted the high honor of fellowship, and toward which we 
have the high duty of trusteeship. 


LEGAL REFORMS 


From an address before the New Hampshire Bar Association at its annual 
meeting in 1915. 

“TN this time of world change . . . it is worth 

while looking inside of our municipal law and seeing 
whether the judgments of the law are made square with 
the moral judgments of mankind. For I believe that 
we are custodians not of commands, but of a spirit. 
We are custodians of the spirit of righteousness, of the 
spirit of equal-handed justice, of the spirit of hope which 
believes in the perfectibility of the law with the per¬ 
fectibility of human life itself . . 

“We are in a period of universal development. All 
business, all science, all thought are casting off old shackles 
and impediments and improving their methods, increas¬ 
ing their efficiency, lifting up their standards. It should 
not be that our noble profession is alone to remain sta¬ 
tionary and without growth along the lines of better 
service and greater usefulness.” 

I know from experience in seeking legal reform that 
it is no royal road. In this connection, I take the 
liberty to quote from a recent letter from a jurist of 
international fame: 

“Shaping the matter into legislation, however, is going to be no 
easy matter, first and foremost, because it will be so hard to get the 
ordinary lawyer to realize that we are not laying hands on the Ark of 
the Covenant and doing all sorts of monstrous innovation. Not only 
is technicality the surest refuge of mediocrity, but there is no conserva¬ 
tism like that of ignorance.” 

Shall it be said of the Bar as was said, in the following 
lines, of a certain conservative: 


IDEALS 


13 


“I do not want to fly,” he said— 

“I only want to squirm; 

I dread to be a butterfly; 

I want to stay a worm!” 

“I left the fool in black and red— 
The last I saw was this: 

The creature madly climbing back 
Into his chrysalis!” 


THE LAWYER AND BIG BUSINESS 


From an address delivered as president of the New Hampshire Bar Asso¬ 
ciation at its annual meeting in 1922 in answer to the deprecation by 
his predecessor of “ The tendency of lawyers to become the mere servants 
of big business , as a lamentable departure from the traditional lawyer .” 

T COULD not, if I would, add to or detract from the 
admirable address of my predecessor. I only in¬ 
terpret its spirit when I say that the question, after all, is 
not whether but how our profession should serve big 
business. 

In view of the ever growing body of law relating to 
business combinations and the relation of such combina¬ 
tions not only to the industrial but to the political life 
of the state and nation, how can a lawyer employ his pro¬ 
fessional skill and integrity more beneficently than by 
representing big business in this vast and important 
domain of law, provided he does so with scrupulous ad¬ 
herence not only to the ethics of our profession but to 
“honesty” and “justice,” adherence to which the New 
Hampshire Constitution (Part 1, Art. 38, Part 2, Art. 83) 
and the Supreme Court of New Hampshire (58 N. H. 
628) declare to be “necessary to preserve the blessings 
of liberty and good government.” 

May we not thereby improve the ethics of business 
and render great service not only to our clients but to our 
country. It may be said that if we represent big business 
at all, it must be according to its own standards, be they 
good or bad. Not so. It must be not only the right but 
the duty of every attorney to say to big business, when 
put to it, “ If I represent you at all, it must be in accord¬ 
ance with the ethics of my profession and with those 
general principles of ‘honesty’ and ‘justice’ which have 


IDEALS 


15 


been declared by the Constitution and courts of my 
State 1 to be necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty 
and good government. ’ ” If every lawyer, with the 
backing of every court and every Bar Association in the 
nation, were to pursue that course, big business could 
not pursue in unethical demands and methods, if it 
wanted to. But according to a recent address* by the 
head of the greatest business institution in America— 
the United States Steel Corporation—no such collision 
between our profession and big business is necessary, 
for big business, according to that declaration, frankly 
admitting past delinquencies, has come to recognize a 
code of ethics of its own which leaves no occasion for 
collision with the most scrupulous lawyer. If differences 
arise in the future between the captain of industry and 
his lawyer, on the score of ethics, the lawyer will have 
only to appeal to the moral law of business just declared 
by Judge Gary in order to justify himself and to estop his 
client. In the future the struggle will be not for the 
lawyer to stand by his own code of ethics against the en¬ 
ticements of his business clients, but rather not to tempt 
his business clients to violate the moral standards of 
business as declared by the biggest business man in the 
business world. I count that declaration of business 
morality, coming at such a time and from such a source, 
so epochal in the annals of American business that I shall 
ask to have it printed as an appendix to the records of 
this meeting, there to stand for all time in connection with 
the address of my predecessor, as a basis upon which the 
lawyers of New Hampshire may serve their business 
clients with the most scrupulous regard for the ethics and 
traditions of their own profession and the requirements 
of “honesty” and “justice” as set forth in our Constitu¬ 
tion and declared by our Supreme Court. If the ethical 

♦Address on “Ethic in Business” by Elbert H. Gary at the North¬ 
western University, Evanston, Ill., June 17, 1922. 


i6 


IDEALS 


standards set forth by J udge Gary in the address referred 
to are not accepted and acted upon in the days to come 
by both big business and its attorneys, the fault should 
not be with the members of the New Hampshire Bar 
in permitting that declaration to be forgotten by 
their business clients or in forgetting it themselves. 
Let us hope that this most remarkable deliverance, com¬ 
ing from such a source and at such a time, may be the 
herald of better conditions, at home and throughout the 
world. 


POLITICAL IDEALS 

SOME TIMELY WARNINGS 

npHE warnings which follow under the headings— 
A Illiteracy, Immigration, Use and Abuse of Political 
Parties, Use and Abuse of Money—are in the language 
used in a Memorial Day Address delivered almost 
forty years ago, so that whatever may be thought of the 
sentiments expressed, it cannot be said that they were 
prompted by present day political considerations, how¬ 
ever applicable they may seem to present day needs. 

Illiteracy 

I cannot contemplate, with any sort of assurance, the 
presence in the Republic of millions of suffragists, who 
cannot read the ballots they cast. This may be a per¬ 
fectly harmless condition, one of the common and ordi¬ 
nary incidents of society, but I confess it is not a condi¬ 
tion in harmony with my ideals of what a Republic 
should be. I confess I should have more confidence if it 
did not exist—if every American citizen could read and 
write. 

Considering the relation of the voter, under our form of 
government, to its life and destiny, general education 
should be the supreme, absorbing policy of the Republic. 

Military systems may be the bulwark of monarchies, 
but general intelligence is the great hope and safeguard of 
a Republic. 

Throughout the Union, and without respect of race, 
color or previous condition of servitude, there should be 
such a complete, thorough, compulsory and universal 
system of public instruction that in two or three genera¬ 
tions, at least, every voter in the broad land will be able, 


18 


IDEALS 


not only to read the ballot he casts, but the glorious 
history of the Republic, of which he is a proud and con¬ 
stituent part. 

Immigration 

Closely related to the dangers from illiteracy, and, in 
some measure, responsible for them are the dangers from 
indiscriminate immigration. We revere the founders of 
this Republic; our hearts respond to the sentiment: 
“America, the asylum of the oppressed/’ to which they 
gave utterance. To the extent of our reasonable capac¬ 
ity to absorb, and as far as we can in justice to those al¬ 
ready here, we should continue to extend a welcome to 
deserving men, women and children of all races and 
climes. But it is our right, consistent with any rational 
interpretation of the theory of our government, to so 
limit immigration that it shall not work injustice to our 
own people, and especially to exclude the vicious, so that 
the composite of American manhood, and womanhood, a 
few generations hence, while it may have lost all trace of 
the original, will have still an expression of quality and 
nobility. 

As we have in the past welcomed all without racial 
discrimination, so in the future, any policy of restriction 
should be based upon inherent quality and character and 
not upon the adventitious circumstances of race, color or 
geographic origin. 

Use and Abuse of Political Parties 

What we conceive to be another danger is party spirit, 
as it has prevailed in the Republic in recent times. It is 
all right for the people to divide upon public questions. 
This is inevitable from the constitution of the human 
mind. Furthermore, under proper limitations, it is de¬ 
sirable. It compels a searching consideration of public 
questions, and furnishes a needful restraint upon hasty 
and ill-advised action. But parties to be beneficial must 


IDEALS 


19 


be patriotic in purpose, and wholesome in methods, seek¬ 
ing only the good of the Republic, by means of legitimate 
organization, honest discussion and a free and fair ex¬ 
pression of the popular will. When they become organ¬ 
ized prejudices, blindly and desperately intent upon 
party triumph, regardless of means, they are no longer 
conservators of the public weal, but the greatest possible 
menace to free institutions. Political parties in the 
United States have widely and wantonly overstepped the 
legitimate uses of such organizations, and have become a 
positive danger to the Republic. 

Under the pretext of fighting the devil with fire, but 
really in the recklessness of party spirit, they have tram¬ 
pled under foot the ideals of democracy, as to the quality 
of public discussion, the sanctity of the suffrage, and the 
fitness of candidates. They have introduced falsehood 
and demagogism into public discussion; they have pros¬ 
tituted the suffrage to a thing of commerce, to be bought 
and sold like truck in the market place; they have used 
the ballot box as a magician uses his cabinet, for the per¬ 
petration of every conceivable trick and fraud; they have 
made public office the plunder of the rich and unscrupu¬ 
lous; manipulation, fraud, bribery, intimidation and 
violence are not uncommon incidents of modern political 
warfare. This may be a perfectly harmless condition, 
but if we are not afflicted with a too exquisite and over- 
refined political sensibility, it is most vicious and seri¬ 
ously threatens the perpetuity of our institutions. 

It is a consolation to feel that these things do not have 
the dispassionate approval of the American people. In 
the after-calm of battle, back in the great popular heart, 
is a sentiment of disgust for it all. But it does no good to 
declaim between elections, only to yield again to party 
passion and sit supinely by, while the whole diabolical 
r 61 e is being reenacted. The sentiment and aspiration 
for political purity and integrity, to be found at nearly 


20 


IDEALS 


every fireside over the broad land, should be aroused and 
organized into a steady, fixed and irresistible purpose to 
restore political organizations to their legitimate uses. 
To this end let us all be politicians. 

Let us see to it that money does not triumph over 
merit; that artful and unscrupulous manipulation does 
not cheat intellect and patriotism of their just recogni¬ 
tion. Let us fight valiantly for our candidates and our 
cause; but let it be the fight and valor of chivalry and 
knighthood, without touch of dishonor. Let us keep in 
mind that the sanctity of the suffrage, the rule of honest 
majorities, and the integrity of our form of government, 
are more to be desired than the triumph of any party or 
any policy, at any time, under any circumstances. With¬ 
out assumption of superior virtue, but rather in a spirit of 
individual confession, self-restraint, and reconsecration, 
let us all exert ourselves to put an end to the demoralizing 
practices into which political parties in the United States, 
have degenerated. 

Use and Abuse of Money 

There is another thing that might well disturb a pa~ 
triot’s contemplation, and that is the absorbing passion 
for money. It is all right for men to employ their muscle 
and their brain in legitimate work and enterprise, to pro¬ 
vide for themselves and families an abundant compe¬ 
tency. This is not only a right, but it is a moral and 
civil duty; thrift, progress and civilization depend upon 
it. But money making has its danger line. When it 
degenerates into a passion, whether from the mere delight 
of accumulation, or with a view to self-indulgence, or 
plutocratic power, it becomes the most dangerous and 
demoralizing influence in human affairs. It results in a 
grossly unequal distribution of the means of human com¬ 
fort and happiness; in enormous fortunes, side by side 
with abject poverty; in extravagant luxury, side by side 


IDEALS 


21 


with heart-sickening privation, and, as a natural and al¬ 
most inevitable consequence, in social discontent, and 
ultimate revolution. It diverts the mind from spiritual, 
intellectual and patriotic tendencies, and prostitutes 
everything to a commercial basis. It swarms the prima¬ 
ries, surrounds the ballot box, invades the halls of legis¬ 
lation, corrupts conventions, and, finally lost to shame, 
and emboldened by success, it would desecrate the very 
temples of justice. In the degradation it brings, the 
millionaire looms up above the scholar, the statesman and 
the philosopher, marking the triumph of the material and 
commercial over the moral and intellectual—a condition 
which, in the history of republics, has been the forerunner 
of disintegration and death. 

Let us beware of this dangerous tendency in our own 
Republic. Let us refuse to “ bend the hinges of the knee, 
that thrift may follow fawning.” In an orderly and 
constitutional way, let us protest fearlessly and inces¬ 
santly against the demoralizing aggressions of wealth. 
Aggregations of capital, engaged in legitimate enter¬ 
prises, should be as scrupulously guarded as the widow’s 
mite; but when they depart from the purposes of their 
creation, and undertake to run politics, control legisla¬ 
tion, in short to dominate the state, maintaining for this 
purpose paid emissaries around every department of 
government and at every point of political action, they 
should receive the deserved rebuke of an indignant and 
outraged people. 

If there are those, who, in the passion for enormous 
fortunes, or in the delight of plutocratic power, have 
trampled upon the weak, ground the poor, and invaded, 
with unholy purpose, the very sanctuary of American 
Liberty, they would do well to stop in their blind course, 
study the lessons of history, harken to the mutterings of 
the masses, take counsel of their discretion and begin the 
cultivation of patriotic sentiment and the spirit of human 
brotherhood, before it is too late. 


PURITY OF ELECTIONS 


Remarks at a State Bar Association meeting more than thirty years ago on 
a resolution favoring the adoption of the Australian Ballot System to 
purify elections . 

T AM in full sympathy with this movement. I have 
-*■ stood, sir, in a polling place of this nation on the oc¬ 
casion of a national election, involving in its sweep the 
destiny of sixty million of people and the fortunes of 
popular government, and observed the working of our 
present system. I have seen a thousand freemen hud¬ 
dled together in one room at one time before one reposi¬ 
tory—surging, swaying, brawling and fighting like an 
impassioned and turbulent mob. In the midst of such 
confusion, I have seen the workers ply their art—bribing 
and intimidating—literally tearing the suffragist’s shirt 
from his back in the contest of opposing factions for the 
possession of his vote. I have stood by the ballot box 
which should be as sacred as the cabinet that holds the 
jewels of the heart and into which should fall no expres¬ 
sion but the pure and free expression of patriotism, and 
seen twenty-five per cent of the voting population driven 
up like cattle and vote as they were bought. 

Would to God this were exceptional, but all over the 
Republic, where party alignments are close, suffrage is 
surrounded by similar conditions. And we are told that 
in one quarter, men are deliberately murdered for their 
political opinions. Now whatever may be said in Fourth 
of July and Memorial Day oratory—whatever may be 
sung in verse—the truth is that universal suffrage under 
such conditions is a farce and a prelude to a tragedy. A 
government cannot long survive drawing its life from a 
source so impure, so demoralized, so vicious. Something 
must be done to elevate the tone of American suffrage or 


IDEALS 


23 


the glory of this Republic will fade away and monarchs 
point to it as another illustration of the futility of popular 
government. 

The primary remedy is education, especially education 
as to civic responsibility. I would have a government 
truant officer for every home and a government instructor 
for every child rather than leave those who are to be 
charged in the future with the responsibilities of Ameri¬ 
can citizenship to grow up ignorant and careless of those 
obligations. 

But there is another efficient corrective, borrowed, 
strange as it may seem, from the old world. It is the 
Australian Ballot System—the system of one uniform 
ballot, including the candidates of all parties, printed 
by the state, marked by the suffragist in privacy and cast 
free from every improper influence and restraint. It is 
no dream of a fanatic. It appeals to the judgment and 
stands approved by experience. The wonder is that we 
have run along in the present devilish way without 
sooner seizing upon the remedy. It was first applied 
in Australia more than thirty years ago and the benefi¬ 
cent result commended it to contiguous states. It was 
adopted in England. Then it crossed the Atlantic and 
was established in the Dominion of Canada. At the 
close of last year, nine states of the American Union had 
put it in force to a greater or lesser extent. Wherever 
it has been fairly applied, whether under institutions 
of the old or new world, it has brought the same benefi¬ 
cent results. Massachusetts was the last to test it in all 
its vigor, and the result, I am told, is a complete answer 
to the objections raised against its essential features. 

It is said that it may be difficult for illiterates to vote 
under it. Mr. President, it would not be a serious mis¬ 
fortune to our country if those, who from ignorance 
cannot read the ballots they cast, should fail to express 
their judgment upon the great questions affecting the 


24 


IDEALS 


destiny of this Republic. I believe it would be a godsend 
to exclude altogether from the ballot box those who 
cannot read or write. Offer the high prize of American 
suffrage for ability to understand its obligations and I 
venture that illiteracy will fast disappear in this nation 
wherever the government is not delinquent in providing 
the proper educational opportunities. 

But again it is said that this party or that may suffer 
by the change. About this I do not know. I think I 
do know that the Republic would be benefited, and that 
is enough for me. It is vastly more important to the 
future of this Republic that there should be an intelligent 
and free ballot than that any party should have a per¬ 
petual lease of power. 

Let us have an honest expression of the popular will, 
North, East, South and West and I will risk the destinies 
of the nation into whatever hands its administration 
may fall. If this be party treason, then I am a traitor. 

I say, let us adopt this reform at once. Let us be 
done with the old methods, under which has developed 
so much that is vicious and portentous, so that every 
voter at the next biennial election may go into the 
privacy of a compartment and there alone with his 
conscience and his God mark his ballot and then proceed 
unhampered to the ballot box and cast his vote with a 
clean mind and heart and a sense of devotion to the 
memory of those who have fought and died for the 
Republic. 


“JETHRO BASS” OR THE ORIGIN OF THE 
PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT 

Letter written August 1st, 1898, to a railroad president protesting against 
the domination of the State by his corporation and the sequel to that 
letter. 

August j, i8q8 . 

Dear Sir: 

I am not one of those who believe or pretend to believe 
that corporations are necessarily public enemies. On 
the contrary, confined to legitimate objects and properly 
administered, I believe they are not only beneficial but 
indispensable. Great results to civilization are wrought 
out in their collective character which would be im¬ 
possible through individual effort. They have been, 
and must continue to be, potent factors in the develop¬ 
ment of our State and Nation. In the legitimate exercise 
of their chartered rights, therefore, the great interests 
they have in charge should be as jealously guarded as the 
widow’s mite. Holding these views, I have no sympathy 
with the spirit which would array the people against 
corporations on general principles. This is demagogism. 
I will have nothing of it. At the same time I recognize 
that the tremendous power for good wrapped up in 
corporate aggregations may be so perverted as to become 
a menace to the State and call for popular rebuke. A 
notable illustration of this is the conduct of your railroad 
in its relation to the State. Instead of attending 
strictly to the business for which it was created—serving 
the people as a common carrier of passengers and freight 
and earning dividends for its stockholders—it has ob¬ 
truded itself into politics, with constantly increasing 
audacity, until it is today the dominant influence in 
€very political movement in the State. Its influence is 
not exerted along party lines, but across them by sup- 


26 


IDEALS 


porting this man or that whose characteristics, associa¬ 
tions and probable attitude upon questions affecting its 
interests have been favorably reported. To effectually 
carry on this guerrilla influence its personnel and retained 
corps is so distributed between the parties that it has 
access to and commanding influence in the primaries, 
conventions and councils of both throughout the State. 
The result is that too many representatives, senators, 
councillors and governors are indebted to its influence 
for their nomination or election. But the more serious 
result, and the one aimed at, is that the influence thus 
acquired is exerted to control the organization, delibera¬ 
tions and acts of the General Court, and the deliberations 
and acts of the Executive Department as well. Of course 
its influence does not always appear in the name and 
garb of your corporation with the insignia of that cor¬ 
poration upon its sleeve. In fact, so perfect and per¬ 
vasive is its organization, and so numerous, distinguished 
and commanding its personnel, and so intimate its rela¬ 
tions with the press, that its desire oft seems like the 
desire of the people. Nor do I say that its influence is 
always exerted by the direction or with the knowledge of 
the central authority. As a result of its long career of 
State jobbing, certain individuals, whose names are 
entirely familiar, have come to be known and understood 
as the authorized representatives of its wishes within 
this jurisdiction. When they press the button, the 
political machinery of the road is set in motion. 

The legislative and executive departments have be¬ 
come accustomed to regard their desire as the desire of 
the great corporation they represent. It is not impossi¬ 
ble that these men, impelled by force of habit, love of 
power, or personal ambition, have collectively or in¬ 
dividually made a more promiscuous and wholesale use 
of the road’s influence than is realized, or would have 
been approved by your office. 


IDEALS 


27 

But, after all excuses, the fact remains that author¬ 
ized or unauthorized, in one form or another, the in¬ 
fluence of your corporation is in and around, directing 
and controlling about every political movement in the 
State. 

I wish these things were only the fabrications of a 
malignant mind, or the bugbears of a crank, but “’Tis 
true, ’tis pity; and pity ’tis, ’tis true.” Every school boy 
in the State knows it. No man can seriously gainsay 
it. Of course, this is an unwholesome and vicious con¬ 
dition, destructive of the very essence and spirit of 
popular government. To protest against such perversion 
of corporate power is not demagogism, but duty. 

I have myself, upon more than one occasion, talked 
of the situation with men high in the confidence of your 
corporation, reminding them that the people would not 
endure it much longer and that the day of wrath was sure 
to come. 

I have indulged the hope that broad management, 
guided by enlightened self interest, would soon correct the 
evil, by restoring the road to its legitimate functions, 
leaving the State government to take its natural course, 
trusting, not to free passes, the lobby and kindred agen¬ 
cies, but to the just sense of a free and fair-minded people 
to protect the interests of the road. I have not yet 
despaired of this result by voluntary action, although 
I must admit that current events within my observation 
are far from encouraging. 

I shall certainly not engage in any war of personal 
revenge against your corporation, for it has always 
treated me with undeserved courtesy, and besides I do 
not believe in such motives for political action. Any 
movement with which I unite for the purpose indicated, 
must come from the heart and conscience of the people, 
and not from the spleen of any individual. Neither shall 
I commit myself to any specific line of legislation in 


28 


IDEALS 


relation to corporate franchises hostile to the franchise 
now enjoyed by your corporation, until I have examined 
the question and satisfied myself that it is fair and just to 
all concerned. 

Upon the abstract question, whether the State shall 
be governed by your corporation, or by the people, I 
have very strong convictions in favor of the latter, but I 
still trust that this question may be settled by the en¬ 
lightened, voluntary action of the road itself. A war 
between the corporation and the people would be disas¬ 
trous to both. Their interests are mutual and inter¬ 
dependent. They should respect the rights of each 
other, and both profit by a relation of mutual trust and 
confidence. 

If this solution of the question is impossible, and the 
corporation persists in the wholesale inter-meddling in 
State affairs, I do not hesitate to say that it is the duty of 
the people, at the right time, upon the right platform, 
with right motives and right leadership, to demonstrate, 
once for all, that they alone are sovereign and that they 
will not suffer any private corporation, however powerful, 
to dominate the State. 

Respectfully yours, 

James W. Remick. 

Because the foregoing protest was disregarded and the 
vicious practices complained of were persisted in, it fell 
to me to write an appeal to the distinguished novelist, 
Winston Churchill, who had just published his celebrated 
novel entitled “ Coniston,” which immortalized the 
character of Jethro Bass and was a declaration of inde¬ 
pendence against corruption in politics, to become a 
candidate for governor upon a platform in keeping with 
that declaration. The appeal was signed by thirteen 
bold and audacious men including your humble servant 
and in due course was accepted. On July 4, 1906, the 


IDEALS 


29 


appeal and acceptance were publicly announced and the 
battle was on which finally resulted in tearing up, figura¬ 
tively speaking, the side track to the State House; in 
abolishing free passes; in putting an end in our State to 
an unregistered and irresponsible lobby; in strengthening 
purity of election of laws and writing into the constitution 
of the state an amendment which I had the honor to 
draft and press to acceptance as follows: 

“No person shall have the right to vote or be elected to office who 
shall have been convicted of any wilful violation of the election laws of 
this state or of the United States,” 

together with numerous other innovations of a progres¬ 
sive character which have been tested and approved by 
experience and are making for better government. 

Although the reforms he thus set in motion have 
been wrought into the fabric of the State, Winston 
Churchill, who gave so much of himself to bring about 
the beneficent result, has been politically banished by 
the political bosses whose vicious control he had chal¬ 
lenged, and the people, apparently forgetful of the great 
sacrifices of health and time and money which he made 
in their behalf, have permitted the decree of banishment 
to stand unrevoked, although the power has always been 
theirs to have it otherwise. 

The seriousness and tragedy of this lies not so much 
in its effect upon Mr. Churchill personally, whose fine 
spirit rises above it, but in the deterrent effect of such 
punishment of noble public service upon the young men 
and women who are just setting sail and of coming 
generations when they feel the impulse to render like 


service. 


AN EPISTLE TO A SENATOR 


Anent Foreign Entanglements, the Philippines, and the League of 


Nations 


FTER the Spanish-American War, when the great 



issue before the American people was whether we 
should extend our sovereignty over the Philippine Is¬ 
lands, and Senator Lodge was speaking so eloquently in 
favor, and his great colleague, Senator Hoar, was speak¬ 
ing with equal eloquence against it, the author, then a 
young Republican, wrote Senator Lodge, in substance, 
that the proposed extension of our sovereignty over ten 
million semi-barbarians in the Far East seemed con¬ 
trary to the admonition in Washington’s Farewell Ad¬ 
dress against foreign entanglements and to the spirit of 
the Monroe Doctrine and fraught with danger to our in¬ 
stitutions. 

The Senator promptly replied telling the author, in 
substance, not to worry but to “ Follow McKinley,” and 
inclosed a speech which he had made in the Senate 
shortly before in support of the proposed adventure. 

Twenty years later, when the Covenant for the League 
of Nations was before the United States Senate for rati¬ 
fication and Senator Lodge was objecting to it upon the 
ground that it would involve us in foreign entanglements 
contrary to Washington’s Farewell Address and the Mon¬ 
roe Doctrine, the author wrote him again, reminding 
him of his advice about extending our sovereignty over 
the Philippines and asking him how he reconciled his pres¬ 
ent with his former position. The Senator did not an¬ 
swer that letter so promptly. In fact, several years have 
passed and we are still waiting for a reply. 

It is difficult to see what reply the Senator could have 
made which would have reconciled his position in favor 


IDEALS 


31 

of foreign entanglement in the former and against it in 
the latter case. The only conceivable explanation of the 
Senator’s change would seem to be that the extension of 
our sovereignty over the Philippines was a Republican 
policy, sponsored by a Republican President and the Re¬ 
publican party while the League of Nations was spon¬ 
sored by a Democratic President and the Democratic 
party. This explanation seems to find confirmation 
“strong as proofs of holy writ ” in the fact that before the 
League of Nations had become a personal and party is¬ 
sue, Senator Lodge had strongly endorsed the idea. 

The unanswered letter is here published, lest it be for¬ 
gotten that those who are now most irreconcilable in 
opposition to the League of Nations and everything 
connected with it, because it would entangle us in foreign 
affairs, were, twenty-five years ago, foremost in urging 
that we should extend our sovereignty over the Philippine 
Islands and ten million semi-barbarians in the Far East, 
loudest in denouncing as “Little Americans” all who op¬ 
posed that entanglement, and are now most insistant 
that our sovereignty over the Philippines should be still 
further continued in spite of their appeal for immediate 
independence, and lest it should also be forgotten that 
those who so eloquently invoked the admonition in 
Washington’s Farewell Address against foreign entangle¬ 
ments for the purpose of defeating ratification of the Cov¬ 
enant for the League of Nations by the United States 
Senate, were, at the same time, in the same place and in 
the same connection, the rankest possible offenders 
against the “solemn” warning in Washington’s Farewell 
Address “against the baneful effects” and “frightful 
despotism” of party spirit; and because it tells the story 
of a political somersault upon the world stage, in a great 
world crisis, which is without a parallel in the annals of 
party gymnastics. 


32 


IDEALS 


March 4, 1919. 


Hon. Henry Cabot Lodge, 

Washington, D. C. 

Dear Senator Lodge: I have read your recent speech in 
the Senate upon the proposed League of Nations and 
note that you are now deeply concerned lest the League 
may contravene the Monroe Doctrine and disregard the 
admonition in Washington’s Farewell Address against 
“interweaving our destiny with that of any part of 
Europe.” 

About twenty years ago, with your cordial approval, 
the United States established its sovereignty over the 
Philippine Islands and ten million inhabitants, then 
declared by you to be semi-barbarous and incapable of 
self-government. This venture was made by our Gov¬ 
ernment without invitation or concert on the part of the 
nations of the Old World and, as you then frankly con¬ 
fessed, for commercial as well as benevolent purposes. 
Of course a Monroe Doctrine for ourselves alone which 
would exclude the sovereignty of the Old World from the 
New and at the same time permit the New World to set 
up its sovereignty in the Old could no more endure as a 
world principle than this Nation could have endured 
“half free and half slave,” and of course the establish¬ 
ment of our sovereignty over the Philippines was con¬ 
trary to Washington’s Farewell Address against foreign 
entanglement. A plainer departure from the traditions 
of the Republic could not be conceived. Before the step 
was taken I wrote you as a young Republican to a Nestor 
of his party, expressing apprehension about the proposed 
venture and asking for a Nestor’s counsel. Replying 
you assured me that the step was a proper one to take and 
sent me a speech you had made on the subject. Fol¬ 
lowing are some of the passages from that speech: 

“We stand like children on the seashore, knowing only the shells and 
the pebbles where we tread, understanding only the ripple of the waves 


IDEALS 


33 


breaking at our feet, while far away before us stretches the great ocean, 
whose confines we cannot see, and whose possessions we can only dimly 
guess. We catalogued the visible stars and then photographed the 
heavens, only to find far beyond the bodies which the most powerful 
telescopes can disclose myriads of stars and systems glimmering away 
into infinite space. . . . 

“If a nation cowers in the presence of a new task and shirks a new 
responsibility, the period of its decline is approaching. . . . 

“When we begin to distrust ourselves, to shiver before the responsi¬ 
bilities which come to us, to retreat in the face of doubts and difficulties, 
then indeed peril will be near at hand. . . . 

“Like every great nation we have come more than once in our history 
to where the road of fate divided. Thus far we have never failed to 
take the right path. Again are we come to the parting of the ways. 
Again a momentous choice is offered to us. Shall we hesitate and make, 
in coward fashion, what Dante calls‘the great refusal’? . . . 

“I do not believe that this nation was raised up for nothing. I do 
not believe that it is the creation of blind chance. I have faith that it 
has a great mission in the world—a mission of good, a mission of free¬ 
dom. I believe that it can live up to that mission; therefore, I want 
to see it step forward boldly and take its place at the head of the na¬ 
tions.” 

These sentiments, so idealistic and beautiful, although 
not exactly in the form of precise definition such as you 
demand of President Wilson, greatly impressed and in¬ 
fluenced me. They were worthy of President Wilson, 
whose idealism you now ridicule; they were worthy of the 
youth who “bore the banner of strange device” in Long¬ 
fellow’s “Excelsior”; worthy of Sir Galahad of Tenny¬ 
son’s “Holy Grail,” and worthy of these noble lines of 
that great poet: 

“ For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see, 

Saw the vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be; 

“Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails, 

Pilots of the purple twilight, dropping down with costly bales; 

“Heard the heavens fill with shouting, and there rain’d a ghastly dew 
From the nation’s airy navies grappling in the central blue; 

“Till the war-drum throbb’d no longer, and the battle-flags were furl’d 
In the parliament of man, the Federation of the world.” 


34 


IDEALS 


What I cannot understand is how you could then so 
singingly, bravely and confidently jump the hurdles of 
Washington’s Farewell Address and the Monroe Doctrine 
for an object confessedly commercial in its last analysis 
and now find it necessary to invoke those traditions 
against the most important and unselfish enterprise of all 
the ages. Nor can I understand how you could then so 
eloquently declaim against the spirit of fear and shrinking 
in the presence of a new duty and responsibility, when 
that duty and responsibility was of such comparative 
unimportance, and now cower before the responsibility 
of a League of Nations, with all that means to America 
and the world. You were so willing, brave and reassur¬ 
ing about extending our sovereignty over the Philippines 
and assuming the guardianship of ten million semi- 
baibarous people, notwithstanding Washington’s Fare¬ 
well Address and the Monroe Doctrine, that I find it 
difficult to understand your present inordinate anxiety 
about those traditions, when the purpose is not to intrude 
our sovereignty and guardianship but to accept an 
invitation to act in concert with the nations of the Old 
World for the welfare of mankind, and when the purpose 
is not, as it was then, to disregard the spirit of the Monroe 
Doctrine ourselves while demanding its observance by 
others but to make the Monroe Doctrine reciprocal for 
the whole world. 

Finally, I cannot understand how you could soar upon 
the wings of fancy to such summits of idealism for an 
object so comparatively unimportant and uninspiring and 
can find for the League of Nations to prevent future wars, 
the most important and most inspiring project in the 
history of the world, nothing but apprehension, criticism, 
negation and obstruction, and for the fine idealism of 
President Wilson in advocacy of that noble project 
nothing but meaningless rhetoric and glittering general¬ 
ities. 


IDEALS 


35 


I must concede that you now invoke Washington’s 
Farewell Address and the Monroe Doctrine against the 
League of Nations with the same consummate ability 
with which twenty years ago you brushed aside those 
traditions to make way for the Philippine adventure, but 
I find it impossible to reconcile the vision, idealism and 
dare-to-do spirit of the first speech with the critical, 
timorous and reactionary spirit of the last one. 

Twenty years ago, you advised me to quiet my ap¬ 
prehensions and as a Republican follow President Mc¬ 
Kinley on the Philippine adventure. If McKinley were 
President today in place of Woodrow Wilson and stood 
as President Wilson stands, for the proposed League of 
Nations, I am wondering whether your advice would or 
would not be the same, and I am wondering also whether 
in so bitterly opposing all that President Wilson is 
endeavoring to do as a peace commissioner you are as 
consistently mindful of all the warnings in Washington’s 
Farewell Address as you are of the warning against 
“entangling alliances,” and my thought turns particu¬ 
larly to the following from that great document: “I 
warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful 
effects of the spirit of party generally. It exists under 
different shapes in all governments, but in those of the 
popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is 
truly their worst enemy.” 

Reference to a few of the points made by you against 
the League of Nations will illustrate how you have 
changed. 

You say that righteous terms of settlement should be 
imposed upon Germany on account of the war from which 
we have just emerged before we talk about a League of 
Nations to enforce peace hereafter. 

Of course Germany must be made to answer and to an¬ 
swer in full for her crimes against the world; otherwise 
there can be no redemption for her or safety for man- 


IDEALS 


36 

kind. But is it not well while settling the accounts of 
this war to provide against future wars as part and par¬ 
cel of the settlement? And is it fair to suggest that those 
who advocate that course are intent upon suspending the 
law of retributive justice in behalf of Germany and her 
allies? 

You ask, shall we surrender our sovereignty? Of 
course we should not surrender our sovereignty, but is it 
not well to exert that sovereignty in concert with other 
nations to avert future wars? What is sovereignty for, 
what is wealth for, what are brains for but to be used as a 
trust in the service of mankind!—and shall we not be 
headed for that graveyard of delinquent nations of the 
past so graphically pictured in your Philippine speech if 
in this supreme moment when the heart of the world is 
ready for a league to enforce the peace of the world we 
make “the great refusal”? Did we surrender our sover¬ 
eignty by the time-honored treaty with Great Britain for 
disarmament on the Great Lakes? And is it fair to sug¬ 
gest that those who now advocate a League of Nations 
for disarmament of the world would surrender that sover¬ 
eignty? Did harm come from disarmament on the Great 
Lakes? Can you believe that anything but good can 
come from general disarmament by a concert of nations? 

Shall we surrender the Monroe Doctrine, you ask. Of 
course we should not surrender the Monroe Doctrine, but 
if it is based on sound political philosophy and is good for 
us is it not well to make it the doctrine of the world, as 
provided by Article 10 of the League covenants? And in 
the light of that article, is it fair to suggest that those who 
advocate the League would surrender the Monroe Doc¬ 
trine? Can we hope to maintain exclusive sovereignty 
at home while obtruding our own sovereignty abroad, as 
we have already done with your approval? Is not such 
a lop-sided, “half-free and half-slave,” “heads-I-win, 
tails-you-lose” policy an affront and “red rag” to the 


IDEALS 


37 


world and a menace greater than any you fear from the 
concerted world Monroe Doctrine contemplated by the 
League? 

If with your counsel we ventured alone and uninvited, 
as an intruder, so to speak, and in violation of the spirit 
of the Monroe Doctrine and Washington’s Farewell Ad¬ 
dress to take guardianship of ten million semi-barbarous 
people in the Orient, need we now hesitate on the invita¬ 
tion of and in concert with all the great nations of the Old 
World to assume a mandatorial relation toward the mil¬ 
lions who have been liberated from tyranny by this war 
and to whom we owe in even greater degree the obliga¬ 
tions of guardianship and upon whose wise and beneficent 
guidance infinitely more depends? 

You ask shall we surrender the power to regulate our 
own internal affairs. Of course not, and is it not an indi¬ 
cation of partisan hostility to the entire program to convey 
the idea that any of the contracting parties contemplated 
anything of the sort either for us or for themselves? 

Again you ask, shall we do the bidding of Great Britain 
and place ourselves at her mercy? Of course we should 
not deliver ourselves, soul and body, into the hands of 
England or any other sovereignty, but after such coopera¬ 
tion for victory, have we suddenly become so provincial, 
selfish, jealous and cowardly that we dare not, even for 
the high prize of “ peace on earth and good-will toward 
men,” trust ourselves to act in concert with the nations 
by whose side we have so recently fought, especially when 
the scheme to that end is approved by such American 
statesmen as President Wilson and Ex-President Taft 
and by the great statesmen of Europe. Why suggest at 
this time that Great Britain, whose navy so recently 
saved our own and the liberty of the world, is now ma¬ 
neuvering to entrap us and that President Wilson and 
Ex-President Taft, the only living men in whom the 
American people have reposed the confidence of the 


IDEALS 


38 

presidency with its tremendous power, are foolishly or 
knavishly leading their country into a trap laid by 
Great Britain? 

You say the mothers of America should have their sons 
back at once and not be made to wait for a League of Na¬ 
tions. Of course the noble women of America who gave 
their loved ones should have them back again, and as soon 
as possible. Of course no advocate of the League of Na¬ 
tions would have it otherwise. But is it not well, while 
settling the accounts of this war and returning our boys 
as fast as transports will permit, to make provision so that 
neither they nor their children, nor their children’s chil¬ 
dren, will have to go through the same terrible experience 
again? And is it fair to discredit the discussion to that 
end by carrying to the mothers of America the idea that 
such discussion is needlessly postponing the joyous mo¬ 
ment of reunion? 

Then, as if to sow discord in the very councils of peace 
and so defeat the League, you tell of the suffering of 
France and would carry the idea that her sufferings are 
being prolonged, that dreamers may dream their dreams. 
France has indeed borne the brunt of the war. Her 
needs are indeed great and pressing. Can anyone be 
more mindful of this than President Wilson and Ex-Presi¬ 
dent Taft or more anxious to the limit to do her justice? 
But is it not well for France in her exposed situation and 
weakened condition that along with settlement for her 
past injuries shall go a strong League of Nations for her 
future protection so that she can take up the work of res¬ 
toration in security and go forward to the glorious des¬ 
tiny to which her noble chivalry entitles her? And is it 
fair to suggest that the delays to that end are sacrificing 
the crying needs of bleeding France merely to gratify the 
idealism of President Wilson and Ex-President Taft and 
their fatuous followers in pursuit of the “Holy Grail” of 
impossible 1 peace on earth and good-will toward men”? 


IDEALS 


39 


Finally, you would convey the idea that the League of 
Nations is Bolshevistic in its international tendency and 
would substitute Trotzsky for Washington. To be sure, 
the League takes note of the unrest in the world and 
recognizes that the military decision may be in vain 
unless it is wisely met. To be sure, President Wilson has 
said that the League voices the aspirations of the common 
people, but let us not forget that it was the way of the 
Master and of Lincoln to keep close to the common 
people. May it be that the social disturbance which 
menaces the world is due to the failure to follow more 
closely in their footsteps? May it be that the solution of 
our social problems must come through more of the true 
spirit of human brotherhood, more of the genuine spirit 
of the Golden Rule, more of the real spirit of the Dec¬ 
laration of Independence in all the relations of life, and 
less perfunctory and conventional prating about them? 
However, do you think it fair to condemn the League 
because it voices the aspirations of the common people 
and aims at the goal fixed by Divine Law? And do you 
mean to suggest that by supporting the League President 
Wilson and Ex-President Taft and the millions who are 
following them are giving aid and comfort to Bolshevism? 

In closing your Philippine speech twenty years ago, 
you spoke with great eloquence and power of the im¬ 
mutable laws of God governing the planets and the 
progress of mankind. I agree with you that “There is a 
divinity that shapes our ends, rough-hew them how we 
will,” but the conventional “Lord, Lord” we read of in 
the Constitutions of States and which we hear in the 
opening and closing of assemblies and oratorical peror¬ 
ations, is nothing but blasphemy if we reject as impossible 
of realization the ideals He set before us and dismiss as 
Utopian, impracticable and dangerous, the noblest of 
human endeavors to attain them. 

Twenty years ago, facing the Philippine situation, you 


IDEALS 


40 

said that we stood at the parting of the ways and coun¬ 
seled the Nation not to cower before new responsibilities 
and duties and not to be guilty of “what Dante calls 
‘the great refusal’” and warned us that if we were the 
Almighty would relegate us to the scrap-heap of derelict 
nations. We have passed through much since then and 
we stand again at a great divide, calling for the most 
momentous decision ever made by men or nations. It 
is now my right to say to you what you then said to me: 
“If a nation cowers in the presence of a new task and 
shirks a new responsibility the period of its decline is 
approaching. . . . When we begin to distrust our¬ 

selves, to shiver before the responsibilities which come to 
us, to retreat in the face of doubts and difficulties, then 
indeed, peril will be near at hand. ... I do not 
believe that this nation was raised up for nothing. I do 
not believe that it is the creation of a blind chance. I 
have faith that it has a great mission in the world—a 
mission of good, a mission of freedom. I believe that it 
can live up to that mission; therefore I want to see it 
step boldly forward and take its place at the head of the 
nations.” 

During the last twenty years, starting with your noble 
precepts, I have learned something of the philosophy of 
life, and it is now my turn to say to you, in the same 
spirit of reverence for the Most High, that although as a 
rule the Almighty leaves His children to find their way by 
the light of conscience, He now and then takes them up 
onto the summits of the soul and shows them, as if by 
light from Heaven, the way He would have them go. 
Such moments of exaltation and vision are usually asso¬ 
ciated with some great tragedy, as if it were the purpose 
of sorrow and suffering to point the way to nobler things. 
Men and nations, if they are wise, chart their course by 
the gleams caught on these higher levels and thus go for¬ 
ward from one altitude to another toward the goal of 


IDEALS 


41 


mankind; but if they are not wise—if from fear, selfish¬ 
ness, cynicism, indifference or other cause, they dismiss 
these visions of the soul as they would dreams or night¬ 
mares and sag back onto the lower levels—then they will 
go the way of degeneracy, and the Almighty will begin 
the process anew, perhaps by flood, perhaps by fire, per¬ 
haps by scourge, perhaps by sword, perhaps by infusing 
the red blood of barbarism into an effete civilization. 
But, as you said in closing your Philippine speech, “On¬ 
ward and forward it will still be.” 

Sincerely yours, 

James W. Remick. 


WOMEN VOTERS AND PARTISAN POLITICS 

An Epistle From a Father to His Daughter Concerning Her Political 
Duties and the Sprit In Which She Should Perform Them. 

Oct. i8, 1922. 

Dear: 

I note you have been appointed chairman of the 
Committee on Organization of the League of Women 
Voters which, I understand, is non-partisan in character 
and has no object but to promote the public welfare by 
intelligent and patriotic exercise of the full political 
rights, which have so recently been conferred upon your 
sex. 

Called to share the political responsibilities of the gov¬ 
ernment, it is highly creditable that you and so many of 
your sex feel the weight of those responsibilities and have 
joined together, not as Democrats or Republicans and 
not as a political party, but just as women and American 
citizens to acquaint yourselves with the duties of citizen¬ 
ship and so be able to more worthily discharge those 
duties. In view of the hold which the party system has 
upon the minds and habits of people in general, I think it 
is quite remarkable that throughout the nation so many 
women, attached by tradition and association to differ¬ 
ent parties, are able to league together in a non-partisan 
and public-minded way for the public good. It is an ex¬ 
ample of breadth, tolerance and public spirit which does 
great honor to your sex and is worthy of general emula¬ 
tion. That there is great need of such a spirit and force 
in our public life, no one can doubt who has studied the 
workings of our party system. 

As a result of party oontests—campaign after cam¬ 
paign and generation after generation—political parties 


IDEALS 


43 

have become like rivals in the ring or on the football field 
and their followers like rooters behind the lines, and 
worst of all, the spirit of the contest has become so intense 
and adherence so blind that degrading methods, which 
would not be tolerated in the ring or on the field, are re¬ 
sorted to not only with impunity but with approval al¬ 
though they menace the life of the Republic. Whatever 
we may say or think, the fact remains that the prejudice, 
growing out of party rivalry, consciously or unconsciously, 
deprives us of that independent and disinterested public 
mindedness which we should bring to bear upon every 
public question. How else can you explain the bitterly 
hostile attitude toward each other of equally intelligent, 
noble and patriotic men and women in party matters and 
how else can you explain the fact that truly noble men 
and women in both parties find themselves so often vot¬ 
ing for ignoble men and measures, against their own in¬ 
stincts. Such blind adherence to bald iniquity by such 
noble men and women cannot be accounted for in justice 
to them except on the theory of unconscious partisan prej¬ 
udice, the result of inheritance, habit and association. 

In his Farewell Address, Washington said: 

"Let me . . . warn you in the most solemn manner against the 

baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. . . . It exists under 

different shapes in all governments, more or less stiffled, controlled, or 
repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest 
rankness and is truly their worst enemy. . . . The alternate 

domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of 
revenge natural to party dissension, ... is itself a frightful 
despotism. . . .It serves always to distract the public councils 

and to enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community 
with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of 
one party against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. 
It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a 
facilitated access . . . through the channels of party passions. 

. . . The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party 

are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to dis¬ 
courage and restrain it.” 


44 


IDEALS 


During Washington’s second administration, he wrote: 

“Until the last year or two, I have had no idea that parties would, 
or even could, go to the length I have been witness to. . . . Party 

spirit has led to abuse of myself in such exaggerated and indecent terms 
as could scarcely be applied to a Nero, a notorious defaulter, or even 
to a common pick-pocket.” 

In a speech delivered in Boston on April 3, 1825, 
Daniel Webster said: 

“ I have long been of the opinion that to preserve the distinction and 
the hostility of political parties is not consistent with the highest de¬ 
gree of public good . . . Entertaining this opinion, I have habit¬ 

ually abstained from attending on those occasions on which the merits 
of public men, and of candidates for office, were discussed, necessarily 
with . . . reference to party attachment and party organization.” 

The great Chief Justice, John Marshall, once wrote: 

“Nothing I believe more debases or pollutes the human mind than 
partisan politics.” 

Cardinal Gibbons said: 

“I am much concerned over the political conditions of this country. 
There seems to be such a gradual trend toward unrighteousness in the 
great mass of our people that thinking men must realize that the prob¬ 
lem must be met without delay. ... In politics today men sell 
their votes for a dollar and a half. Corrupt political bosses in many 
states and cities lead men to vote either way they choose. Men are 
nominated and elected who are unfit.” 

On March 20, 1920, the Saturday Evening Post de¬ 
clared : 

“Politics is rotten—rottener even than most of those suspect who 
have none but casual knowledge of the insides of it. But the reason 
politics is rotten is because the very people who complain loudest of its 
putridity have allowed it to decay as it has.” 

The Boston Transcript within a few months in a leading 
editorial quoted warningly from one of the great books 
inspired by the World War as follows: 

“ Democracy has come under the thumb of the Party System and the 
Party System has reached a very high point of efficiency. It has bet- 


IDEALS 


45 

tered the example of the hugest mammoth store in existence. It has 
elaborated machinery for crushing out independent opinion and cramp¬ 
ing the characters of public men. In commending its wares, it has 
become as regardless of truth as a vendor of quack medicines. It 
pursues corruption as an end, and it freely uses corruption both direct 
and indirect—as the means by which it may attain its end. If the 
Party System continues to develop along its present line, it may ulti¬ 
mately prove fatal to the principle of Democracy.” 

My own experience and observation during an active 
political life of more than forty years confirm the opinions 
above expressed and lead me to join in the following 
counsel recently given by one of America’s greatest men 
to the women of America, immediately following their 
enfranchisement: 

“As an American who believes always in America above party, I 
should say that the women of America will make no mistake in the 
exercise of the highest duties of citizenship if they hold to their inde¬ 
pendence, putting the interests of the great Republic always above 
party, and voting from time to time upon the issues that may be 
presented upon their merits and not from the standpoint of partisan 
politics. In this way they will be able to exercise an influence and 
power which will work constantly for the common good, because it will 
compel each of the great political parties to reckon with this formidable 
independent element and strive to act always for the best interests of 
the country in order that they may secure this independent support.” 

If you believe with me that women can serve their 
country best by remaining non-partisan, still I would have 
no quarrel with those who believe that every woman 
should align herself with one party or the other—with 
all that implies of subjection to party discipline and sup¬ 
port of party candidates and policies, whether good or 
bad. On the contrary, I would wish them Godspeed and 
help them to accomplish the good they hope to ac¬ 
complish through their respective parties. If it is their 
desire to simply accomplish good for the country and the 
difference between you is merely one of method, they too 
will be tolerant for they will find it much easier to per¬ 
suade their partisan brothers to stop playing the game 


IDEALS 


46 

and do what is right, if there is a great non-partisan body 
of their sisters on the outside—holding the balance of 
power—and sure to cast their votes against the delin¬ 
quent party. Most progressive legislation aimed at 
political corruption and seeking civic uplift has come 
about not through the initiative of political parties and 
politicians but by cooperation between so called insurgent 
Republicans and Democrats—holding the balance of 
power, standing firmly for principle as against party, and 
so ultimately compelling favorable party action as a 
matter of party preservation. But party insurgency is 
not only contrary to the normal party habit of mind but 
is also risky business for the insurgent. As a rule, there¬ 
fore, the partisan man or woman will submit to the party 
mandate, right or wrong, rather than depart from the 
party habit or incur the risk of insurgency. Insurgency, 
therefore, is the exception and party loyalty the rule. 
The politicians presume upon this disposition to party 
adherence and so resist political reforms and take 
liberties for political and selfish ends which they would 
not otherwise do. If they were always menaced by an 
organized and continuing body of independent citizens— 
holding, perhaps, the balance of power and not committed 
to the rules of the party game, your partisan sisters 
might be able to induce favorable party action for the 
things you hold in common without resorting to insur¬ 
gency. However, experience has demonstrated that an 
independent balance of power is a necessary complement 
of the party system—that without it parties degenerate 
into corrupt and self-seeking political machines and 
become, as Washington, Marshall, Webster, Cardinal 
Gibbons and others have said, a menace to the Republic. 

While avoiding, as you would poison, the prejudice and 
intolerance of partisanship, you should, at the same time, 
avoid the prejudice and intolerance which are too often 
found in the disguise of non-partisanship and reform. 


IDEALS 


47 

Prejudice and intolerance are as bad in one case as 
in the other. Do not fear to be called a high-brow or 
reformer for doing what you think you ought to do as an 
American citizen, but be sure that you do not do it in any 
holier than thou, or high-brow spirit. Remember that 
in the sight of God, the highest social level is where the 
common people are earning their bread in the sweat of 
their brows and that in proof of this, He has exalted the 
Carpenter’s Son and the Rail Splitter to the highest 
places respectively in the spiritual and political world 
and for all the ages. Avoid, as you would poison, 
racial and religious prejudice. Be as broad and tolerant 
in these respects as Lincoln was and you will go far 
toward being as good a Christian and Patriot. Do not 
forget that our Government is founded upon the idea of 
religious as well as political liberty; that to err is human— 
to forgive, divine, and that the greatest things on earth 
or in heaven are charity and love. 

You will meet with many rebuffs and disappointments. 
The world will seem slow to accept the truth, however 
obvious it may be to you, but do not be discouraged. 
Remember that the Golden Rule and the Declaration of 
Independence are as yet little more than beautiful theories 
and that the Master was Crucified, and Lincoln was shot. 
However rough and dark the road, however hard and 
slow the journey, and however far away the divine event 
may seem, never lose faith in the ultimate triumph of 
right. Guard well your health and character, fearlessly 
do your duty as you see it, keep your spirit sweet, above 
all trust in God, and the angels will attend you and the 
world will be better because of your life and influence. 

All this seems like preaching—as if you needed it when, 
in fact, I need it more than you do. It is a source of 
great happiness that as to most of the matters above 
indicated, both you and mother are already examples to 
me. If you find nothing else of value in this letter than 


IDEALS 


48 

evidence that I am trying to follow your example, I 
trust that, for that alone, it may prove a source of satis¬ 
faction. 

Affectionately, 


NATIONAL SELFISHNESS OR NATIONAL SOUL? 


Remarks at a state-wide Belgium Relief mass meeting at Concord , N. H ., 
March 3, 1915. 

A SHORT time ago a most estimable lady said to me 
1 that she would have more sympathy for Belgium if 
she had not brought her troubles upon herself by un¬ 
necessarily resisting the passage of the German Army 
across her territory to reach and destroy France, and de¬ 
fending her neutrality in accordance with treaty obliga¬ 
tions, when she might have ignored the treaty as a scrap 
of paper, as Germany did, and so escaped the awful in¬ 
fliction which came to her. 

Holding, as I do, that treaty obligations are sacred, 
that a man’s home is his castle and that the same sanctity 
should surround the unoffending citizens of a civilized 
state, I confess that the remark aroused my indignation. 
Had I made a reply, I would have said: 

“If the Christ had regarded his life and safety, he would not have 
been crucified; but the world and the ages would have lost their great¬ 
est inspiration.” 


I would have said: 

“If women had been willing to submit to dishonor to escape violence, 
there would have been fewer assaults; but the ideal of womanhood, 
the next greatest inspirational force in the progress of civilization, 
would have been lost to the world.” 


I would have said: 

“ If the barons of England had been willing to submit to the exactions 
and tyranny of King John, the Empire would have escaped the ravages 
of fire and sword; but we should not have that priceless guaranty of 
human liberty, the Magna Charter.” 

I would have said that: 

“If our forefathers had been willing to submit to taxation without 
representation, they would have escaped the bloodshed and sacrifices 
of Bunker Hill and Valley Forge; but we should not have the Declaration 


50 


IDEALS 


of Independence, the Constitution of the United States nor this great 
Republic that is leading the world onward to universal democracy.” 

I would have said: 

“ If the men of 1861 had been willing to regard the Constitution as a 
scrap of paper and the principles of the Declaration of Independence 
as glittering generalities which they had better waive than fight for, 
they would have escaped all the horrors of that fratricidal conflict; 
but we should not have the Stars and Stripes as the ensign of a free 
people and an indissoluble Union.” 

We should have no sympathy with morbid martyrdom 
and much less with the bravery that flaunts itself, but 
we should glory in that spirit which, throughout the ages, 
has led men and women and nations to stand up and 
fight for their honor and their ideals; and I say that, if 
every cathedral and library and work of art and every 
city and town and every man, woman and child in 
Belgium were blotted from the face of the earth and 
nothing remained but the blood of her children upon the 
green grass of Belgium, there would be more potentiality 
for making the future civilization of the world what it 
should be in that blood, shed in defense of treaty obliga¬ 
tion and national integrity and honor, than there would 
be in Belgium intact, with a record of cowardly and 
selfish submission. 

That this little country has been shot to pieces, its 
resources confiscated and its whole population reduced to 
actual starvation for no offence except that she insisted 
that her neutrality should be respected in accordance 
with solemn treaty obligations, is an illustration of the 
ruthlessness of war without a parallel in human annals. 

But let us remember that it is the way of the Almighty 
to bring about necessary readjustments in the moral, 
political and natural worlds by means of great tragedies 
and convulsions. 

In the moral world, we see this process at work in the 
tragedy of the cross. There had been dreams of New 
Testament ideals before the Christian era, but there had 
to be that great sacrifice to give them enduring vitality. 


IDEALS 


51 


In the political world, we see the same divine hand 
in the bloody revolutions which have marked the prog¬ 
ress of political liberty—notably in the American 
Revolution, the French Revolution and in our Civil 
War. For centuries, there had been dreams of the 
inalienable rights of man, but there had to be those 
great human tragedies to give those rights a permanent 
place in political society. 

In the natural world the same law is at work. We 
hear it in the thunder grounding arms among the moun¬ 
tains. We feel it in the shock of the earthquake. We 
see it in the flash of the lightning and in the fury of the 
cyclone and the sea. These titanic forces often carry 
devastation and death in their pathway but they preserve 
the equilibrium of the universe and save it from worse 
destruction. 

Can we not see in the mighty force that is now shaking 
the earth from center to circumference as it was never 
shaken before, and in the tragedy of Belgium which is 
set in the midst of the carnage like a cross crimsoned with 
blood, the power of the invisible one arousing mankind 
against militarism by visualizing as never before its 
appalling consequences and horror and by preparing in 
the old way of convulsion, tragedy and sacrifice, for the 
fulfillment of the prophecy: “He shall judge among the 
nations and they shall beat their swords into plough¬ 
shares and their spears into pruning-hooks. Nation 
shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they 
learn war any more.” 

In this great world conflict in which so many of our 
sister nations are industrially prostrate, fighting for their 
very existence, what part shall America, “the land of 
the free and the home of the brave,” play? Shall it 
be the part of the turkey buzzard, or shall it be a chival¬ 
rous part—bearing a full share of the great sacrifice 
which is to transform the civilization of the world. 


TWO GUARDIANS OF DEMOCRACY 
Columbia and LaFrance 


From an address delivered at Concord , New Hampshire , February 24 , 
iqiq, on the occasion of the presentation by the French Government of 
official certificates of her gratitude to the sons and daughters of Concord 
who gave their lives in the World War. 


'^[OT only in bravery—fighting for democracy—but 
^ in gracious courtesy, France and America are at once 
comrades and rivals. To America, France gave the 
Statue of Liberty in New York harbor, bearing the 
inscription: “Liberty Enlightening the World.” To 
France, America is presenting a memorial statue to mark 
the place at the Marne where her brave sons made that 
heroic defense, which gave to America the opportunity 
to come to her rescue and not only pay her debt to France 
but to fulfill her trust as the world’s great leader of 
democracy. 

Tonight, in the same spirit of gracious reciprocity, 
France is to give to those who gave their sons and 
daughters that France and liberty might live, a beautiful 
and touching symbol of her gratitude. 

Joined together by such bonds of sacrifice, sentiment 
and aspirations, may they continue to stand guard 
together over the ideals of democracy. What God hath 
joined together for such noble ends, may nothing put 
asunder. 

In the war of the Revolution and in the World War, 
there was, inevitably, more or less friction, but now, as 
then, let us remember only the noble comradeship in a 
noble cause and stand together to preserve world peace 
and uphold human liberty. 

May I not humbly pray “that the mystic chord of 
memory stretching from every battlefield and patriot’s 
grave to every living heart and hearthstone” may touch 


IDEALS 


53 


’“the better angels of our natures” and make and keep 
us worthy of all who have done and died for liberty; may 
I not plead that the spirit of the Declaration of Inde¬ 
pendence and the Golden Rule may live and breathe in 
every fibre of our being every moment of our lives and 
govern the action of men and nations in all their re¬ 
lations? 

Do you say this is a dream impossible of realization? 
If so Christianity is a myth, and divine worship a 
mockery. If so, Calvary, Bunker Hill, Gettysburg, 
Flanders Fields, and all the battles and triumphs and 
tragedies of the human heart since the world began have 
been to no purpose. If so, the Master and Lincoln and 
all the martyrs of all the ages have died in vain. If so, 
America and France and Washington and LaFayette 
might as well never have fought and suffered together. 
If so, the Statue of Liberty France gave to America and 
the memorial statue which America in turn is giving to 
France are a waste of money, and the certificates which 
France is to give tonight in honor of the sons and daugh¬ 
ters of Concord who gave their lives that she might live 
are “mere scraps of paper.” Let us rather believe that 
“there is a divinity that shapes our ends, rough hew 
them how we will”; that “through the ages one increas¬ 
ing purpose runs and the thoughts of men are widened 
with the process of the suns”; that the way of progress 
from barbarism to our present state still leads forward 
and upward and that all the sacrifices of the past, in¬ 
cluding the latest sacrifice of your own sons, and daugh¬ 
ters, are in accordance with a Divine plan to bring 
ultimate “peace on earth, good-will toward men.” 

The process of upheavals and reactions in the social 
and political as well as in the material world are hard to 
understand. LaFayette, whose supreme passion was 
for liberty and who had fought and sacrificed so much for 
it in the Revolution over here, in the Revolution which 


54 


IDEALS 


soon followed over there, but narrowly escaped the 
guillotine and was actually driven out of the country and 
imprisoned and persecuted at the hands of the revolu¬ 
tionists and in the name of liberty. In the midst of the 
chaos and confusion and apparent hopelessness of our 
times, when the perverse desire, expressed by the char¬ 
acter in Macbeth to “pour the sweet milk of concord 
into hell, uproar the universal peace, confound all unity 
on earth,” would seem to have come to pass, let us not 
forget that God still reigns—that after the thunder and 
lightning is the rainbow; after the crucifixion, the Golden 
Rule; after the Revolution, the Declaration of Inde¬ 
pendence, and the Constitution of the United States; 
after the Rebellion, emancipation and a more perfect 
Union; and after the Reign of Terror, the glorious 
LaFrance of the Marne—worthy sister of our own 
Columbia. 


THREE PILLARS OF CIVILIZATION 
Church, School and Home 

From an address delivered at Conway , N. H., September , 1923, at the 
dedication of the A. C. Kennett High School 

/^\BVIOUSLY the true value to civilization of the 
church, the school and the home does not depend on 
size, architecture or cost. 

In their physical structure and appointments, they 
may be the best that the mind can conceive. Unlimited 
money may be at their disposal. The minister may be a 
master of theology, the teacher a master of pedagogy, the 
housewife a master of domestic science, and yet the 
church, the school and the home may fail to realize their 
high and noble purposes, unless the soul and spirit of 
religion, the soul and spirit of education, the soul and 
spirit of the fireside live and glow within them. 

Dogmas and creeds cannot take the place of the soul 
and the spirit of religion. On the contrary, they kept 
Lincoln and in times past have kept millions from the 
church. In that connection Lincoln wrote: “I have 
never joined a church because I have found difficulty in 
giving my assent without mental reservation to the long 
complicated statement of Christian doctrine which 
characterizes their articles of belief and confession of 
faith.” Continuing, he said: “When any church will 
inscribe over its altar as its sole qualification for member¬ 
ship, the Saviour’s condensed statement of the substance 
of both law and gospel, ‘Thou shalt love the Lord, thy 
God, with all thy heart, with all thy soul and with all 
thy might and thy neighbor as thyself,’ that church will 
I join with all my heart and all my soul.” If the church 
is to fulfill its mission in the world, it must sink disputes 
about dogma and creed, and unite in emulation of the 
Master’s life of love and service. The inter-church 


IDEALS 


56 

movement now going on in the world and the growings 
inter-church spirit everywhere manifesting itself, are 
encouraging signs of response to the call of the soul of 
mankind for a church, unified in the spirit of the Master. 

As of the church, so of the school—nothing can take the 
place of the spirit. Mere pedagogy, bound by profes¬ 
sion and tradition to ancient methods and curriculums, 
cannot take the place of the spirit of education. 

Higher education should of course be encouraged, but a 
knowledge of practical matters necessary to successful 
lives and useful citizenship should be taught, if need be, 
from the kindergarten through every grade and by 
teachers imbued with the importance of such knowledge 
and eager to impart it. 

No pupil, boy or girl, should be permitted to leave 
school and assume the duties of citizenship without an 
understanding of the structure and history of the gov¬ 
ernment of which they are to become a constituent part 
and of the obligations of citizenship. 

No girl should be permitted to finish school without a 
thorough understanding of domestic science and a true 
conception of the importance and dignity of home making 
nor without adequate knowledge of the physiology and 
functions of her sex and of their sacred relation to the 
home and civilization. 

No boy should be permitted to finish his education 
without knowing how to tie a knot to meet an emergency 
and such a knot as the emergency requires; without know¬ 
ing the name of one tree from another; without knowing 
how to swim and paddle and shoot; without knowing how 
to use, in the commonest way, the commonest tools of 
the commonest handiwork; without, in short, knowing 
those things which every man most needs to know in 
everyday life and ignorance of which makes him seem a 
sissy among his fellows. Moreover like his sisters, he 
should be taught the physiology and functions of his sex 


IDEALS 57 

and their sacred relations to the home and society and 
there should be no false modesty about it. 

If it is urged against sex instruction that it puts the 
idea of sex into the mind of the child and that such in¬ 
struction should be left to the parents and the sacred 
precincts of the home, the answer is: (i) that it is im¬ 
possible to keep the sex idea from the child; (2) as a 
general rule parents never have and never will perform 
their duty in this respect; (3) it is better for the child to 
meet the sex problem, so vital to his welfare, face to face, 
in the light of science and experience, and with an under¬ 
standing of the physical, civil and divine laws governing 
it, than to leave him to meet the lure, mystery and ro¬ 
mance of it without such understanding. 

If the school is to fulfill its mission in the world, it 
must adapt itself to the needs of the world. As the torch 
bearer of the world, it must hold the torch high and keep 
it burning brightly. The gradual extension of elective 
courses and occupational departments, and the vision 
and spirit which characterized the recent world conference 
of five million teachers, are signs that the school is facing 
the sunrise and keeping step with the march of progress. 

As of the church and school, so of the home—nothing 
can take the place of the spirit. There may be the 
strongest bedpost and buttery attachments; there may 
be no default in domestic science, but if the home would 
fulfill its mission in the world, it must have also the home 
and fireside spirit of love, devotion and service. And let 
us not forget that the true fireside spirit includes the rela¬ 
tion and obligation of love, devotion and service to the 
neighborhood, the state, the nation, the world and to the 
Almighty. 

I need not say that the home should be a place of obe¬ 
dience to civil and divine law. Certainly it should not be 
an improvized distillery and an accomplice in bootlegging 
thereby bringing the constitution into contempt and en¬ 
couraging anarchy. 
















































